I was making some toast this morning and I had the TV on in the background.

Fox News was playing Robert Blake’s prelim, and I could give a shit if that turd lives or dies, but my ears pricked up when I heard the Prosecutor ask the M.E. a question about how many autopsies he’d performed.

The M.E. stated that he’d performed “4,500 autopsies, 1,000 of which were gunshot homicides…” Hmmmm….according to the anti-gun zealots, I would have guessed that the gunshot homicides would have been at least 4,499, with the 4,500th having being bludgeoned to death by a gun, or perhaps dieing from the shock of having been shown a picture of a gun.

Could our beloved anti-gun zealots be exaggerating a bit? Now, how about the anti-SUV crowd?

Ooops, there I did it…calling them a crowd. I’ve only heard five or six people talking trash about SUV’s, and here I am making them into a crowd…

Rachel Lucas is taking a break, maybe for weeks, maybe forever. I don’t care, because I didn’t read or comment in her site. But, I found it interesting that she justified leaving her site up but closing down her comments section with the following reason:

I want to be able to go days at a time without checking my e-mail or monitoring my comments section for trolls and psychos.

Hey, that’s why I don’t have a comments section! Well, one of the reasons. I can handle the email, it’s the mindless blithering and furious exchage of facts that wears me out…I wanna hear what you think! I wanna hear what you feel! I don’t care what the Baron De Roqueville wrote about the plight of silversmith’s and hatter’s in 1782 and how this relates to the struggle for civil rights and why Bono sucks dick…geez.
I keep this site up for me. I give not a tinker’s hoot what anybody else thinks unless they agree with me, and then it just becomes redundant. I have enjoyed the occasional exchange of emails, and have blocked the occasional moron. C’est la guerre. I do not give a wet shit about ‘netiquette’ or what is considered de riguere for ‘the blogosphere’.
“Fuck You, We Do What We Want!” used to have some meaning…I haven’t forgotten that.

BRAZZAVILLE, Feb 21 (Reuters) – Congolese villagers have stoned and beaten to death four teachers accused of casting an evil spell to cause an outbreak of the deadly Ebola disease that has killed nearly 70 people, a local official said Friday.

The outbreak of Ebola in the districts of Kelle and Mbomo near the central African country’s northern border with Gabon is thought by scientists to have been caused by the consumption of infected monkey meat.

But many locals believe occult forces are at work.

“In Kelle, people continue to believe that the Ebola disease is a spell that has been cast on them by witches, and four teachers accused of being the cause of the disease have been beaten and stoned to death,” said Dieudonne Hossie, a local official. He did not say when the teachers were killed.

“We call on the people of Kelle to be calm. It is the Ebola virus which is raging in the area. It is not an evil spell, it is a scientifically proven virus,” Hossie, who was speaking on the official Radio-Congo, said.

Do I really need to say anything I haven’t already said? We need to leave these savages to their own devices, and turn our wrathful eye to South America, where some serious Conquistadorianism needs to be done…

At least 96 people were killed and 187 hurt after a Rhode Island nightclub erupted in flames during a ‘Great White’ rock concert Thursday night…I guess if you gotta go, half smashed listening to some good metal oldies is better than taking a swim with a Kennedy. I feel a little guilty, though, like when you hear a bus went over a cliff and you think ‘Yikes!’ and then you hear it was migrant farm workers and breathe a sigh of relief. A bunch of RI yuppie Democrats is pretty far down my scale of working up a good give a dang…sorry.

Now, if it would have been a Jim Jeffords fund raiser, I’d be actively celebrating. Instead I’m just annoyed at real news being covered up by the media anal exam they give every trivial story nowadays, though I must admit that the whole live-cam on the scene ‘Firestarter’ re-enactment is pretty cool.

As usual, I wonder what is going on in the real world that is being obscured by this Reality TV Rhode Islander Roast. And I can’t wait for all the crocodile tear ‘memorial’ ceremonies to start…little stacks of flowers, cards, and bears left by well coiffed fakers who are just hoping to get on TV while they pose for the cameras.

Ever notice how their mascara never runs, these pseudo-snifflers? And the cameramen, bored, always oblige by filming the hotties as they pose by the ‘makeshift’ memorial. Heck, go give those bears and flowers to some sick little kids in a hospital, these folks are just ash tray filling, now.

If someone wants to start a fund for those burn victims, though, mark me down for a donation, that shit hurts. If it were me in that hospital, I’d be begging someone to OD me with a tube of street H before I had to endure any more pain, and then spend the rest of my life looking like a fallen souffle’.

I read a comment by some German where he complained about Americans reminding Europe of their debt to us for our sacrifices during WW2.

He says that no one he knows, including himself has ever suffered under a dictatorship and whatnot, so why does he owe us anything?

Hmmmm, makes sense to me. I’ll trade you liberals that, and you give me no more pestering about slave reparations, and we’ll call it even, okay?

Hey, I never fought in WW2, either, and I never met any of my relatives at family reunions who died over there, so I never got the opportunity to miss sitting around and talking with them.

I’ve got nothing to lose on this one, just shut the heck up about slave reparations and we have a deal.

Oh, and Kraut-boy? Don’t whine when we pull out our 80,000 or so troops that made it so you could ‘wake up in a democracy every morning’…don’t whine when your economy collapses because our military quit buying your crap and paying you rent.

And I’m sure your great German military will be able to keep you safe when we’re gone, and other countries start licking their lips at the fat little German baby that is laying unprotected in the woods.

Hey, call on your allies the French if you need anything, okay? Let me know how all this works out for you, buddy…auf wienersen!

“…I’m a supporter of gay rights, drug legalization, evolution, human cloning, and abortion…” I did not know that. I know, I know, don’t let the door hit me in the ass on the way out. Oh well, it was fun while it lasted. Bye.

The above was the sum total of my comment on Lee’s site, that others are seeming to blow out of all proportion…get over it [Update Ends]

A friend of mine directed me to this blog where I used to post, where they were discussing the ‘use-to-ishness’ of my posting on the site (Right-Thinking.com). I read it all, and post it here with very little editorial interference. I was tempted to go in and post arguments and refutations, but it just felt lame…and I think I said everything I had to say, anyway. Lee does more good than harm, I think one day, and the next, I am chilled by his quasi-egalitarian laisser-faire attitude.

Oh well, my problem, not his. I sit in my own dark blog, looking into his well lit one with more than a little jealousy, being so often drawn to go in by the lights and the barkers, just to have…companionship, if nothing else. Then, I remember my son…today…somewhere in Kuwait, spitting stirred up grit, nerves drawn taut, carrying a weapon even to go shit, and I am reminded…

de guello, give the liberals no quarter, and smite the Islamo-fascists if they stand, and shoot em if they run.

I always get so distracted by the big picture…

Read on…I’ll italicise my words for clarity:

Hasta La Vista
I’ve been meaning to blog on this for a few days now, but the unfolding war has preoccupied most of my blogging time. As my regulars may have noticed, one of my oldest readers, Bane, has stopped coming around. Bane was one of the first two or three people to read my blog, back when it was on Blogspot and I was using one of their standard templates. A few weeks ago I wrote a post where I stated “I’m a supporter of gay rights, drug legalization, evolution, human cloning, and abortion.” Bane left the following comment:

I did not know that. I know, I know, don’t let the door hit me in the ass on the way out. Oh well, it was fun while it lasted. Bye.

I thought he was just goofing around, so I shot him an email asking if he was coming back. He pointed me to a post on his blog that pretty much settled that issue once and for all.
Bane said: “I must confess that I’ve been slumming. I didn’t really know I was slumming, but the hints were there. I just chose to ignore the signs, because I was enjoying myself. Isn’t that how it always goes? I was goofing off in http://www.right-thinking.com and in http://kimdutoit.com The problem? They call themselves conservatives, and they pretty much tend to talk the talk. But they are both pro abortion, pro drug legalization, pro faggotry, and so on. Yep, stealth liberals. It makes me genuinely sad. I am literally feeling so betrayed that there is an ache in my heart. Bet you think I didn’t have one of those, eh?”

[Bane: Below is my full post…Lee continues with the rest after…]
Thursday, January 30, 2003I must confess that I’ve been slumming. I didn’t really know I was slumming, but the hints were there. I just chose to ignore the signs, because I was enjoying myself.
Isn’t that how it always goes? I was goofing off in http://www.right-thinking.com and in http://kimdutoit.com. The problem? They call themselves conservatives, and they pretty much tend to talk the talk. But they are both pro abortion, pro drug legalization, pro faggotry, and so on. Yep, stealth liberals. It makes me genuinely sad. I am literally feeling so betrayed that there is an ache in my heart. Bet you think I didn’t have one of those, eh?
Well, I’m out of there, even though I really enjoyed the interplay and liberal bashing. I still like the guys well enough who host those sites, I just can’t, in good conscience, hang out there anymore. This is why the only true friend I have is my wife, because she and I agree fully on all of the truly important issues. I’ll meet someone who I think “hmmm, maybe I could make a friend, here” and then they say something to the effect that “what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom doesn’t effect me” or “anybody who is anti-abortion and pro death penalty is just a hypocrite” and the blatant wrongness of statements such as those, and all the other claptrap that proves they are another successful graduate of the American public school system, just knocks the wind out of me. Oh, I could sit around in a bar with them and shoot the shit (except I don’t go to bars anymore), but I realize that true friendship will just not be possible unless one of us changes…and I’ve spent too much time and research, and have too much experience to change now. Is that why I blog? Because I’m lonely? Hmmmm, it’s possible…
posted by Bane at 6:27 PM

While Bane is certainly entitled to his opinion, and free to read or not read my blog at his discretion, I have to take issue with the “stealth liberal” comment. I don’t subscribe to the ideal that there is one set of issues that one must subscribe to in order to claim for themselves the title of “conservative.”

He takes issue with the fact that I am pro-choice, or “pro-abortion” as he puts it. Somehow I doubt that liberals would consider me on their side on the abortion issue. I believe in abortion only in the beginning of a pregnancy. I have no problem banning the procedure after a certain point. I think partial birth abortion should be banned immediately. I believe that Roe v. Wade is one of the worst decisions the Supreme Court has ever handed down, and I fully believe that the regulation of abortion should be returned to the states. This has less to do with my desire to see abortion banned than it does my belief in federalism. The Constitution gives the federal government absolutely no power to regulate abortion in any manner, and should therefore be left to the states.

As far as drug legalization goes, I am indeed for it but not because I am “pro-drug.” I am under no illusion as to what the ramifications are of legalizing drugs. My complaint with the drug war is simply one of economics. Drugs are a problem in society, this cannot be denied, but like most problems there are more than one solution. The “drug war” solution has cost an astronomical amount of money, filled our prisons with people who pose very little risk to society, and kept drug cartels in business. I simply feel that the more pragmatic approach is to use the resources available to us in programs to discourage drug use and treatment for those who need it. The savings in prison costs and law enforcement would be massive, not to mention the tax revenue collected by sale of a legal product. But legalization will not solve the problem alone. The answer is to develop drugs specifically for recreational purposes.

America has the greatest pharmaceutical industry in the world. If drug use were legalized these companies could begin development of safe, recreational drugs. This is an approach that has never been attempted anywhere. Imagine Pfizer developing a pill that gave you a cocaine high without the dangers of cocaine itself. With the power of the free market enabled the profit motive would provide the incentive for drug companies to invest millions in R&D toward the development of safe, alternative recreational drugs.

Being in favor of the legalization of drugs does not make me pro-drug. But it does make me open to new avenues to attacking an existing problem.

As far as being “pro-faggotry” he’s got me there. I have no problem with gay people whatsoever. I don’t find it immoral or offensive in the slightest. But, even if I did, so what? Bane is free to hold whatever beliefs he desires, but our Constitution provides for equal justice under law for all citizens, and there is no exception based upon sexual preference. Even if I found the gay lifestyle utterly repugnant that would still provide no basis for me to deny them the same fundamental rights that both Bane and I enjoy by virtue of being heterosexual. In his personal dealings Bane is more than entitled to associate with whomever he chooses (or, to NOT associate with certain people, as the case may be). But his personal preferences do not carry the weight of law, and neither do mine. I would much rather live in an America where everyone was free to enjoy their own pursuits towards happiness than in one where only certain pursuits were sanctioned by the state.

[Bane: Lee continues now with the rest of my posting]

Well, I’m out of there, even though I really enjoyed the interplay and liberal bashing. I still like the guys well enough who host those sites, I just can’t, in good conscience, hang out there anymore. This is why the only true friend I have is my wife, because she and I agree fully on all of the truly important issues. I’ll meet someone who I think “hmmm, maybe I could make a friend, here” and then they say something to the effect that “what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom doesn’t effect me” or “anybody who is anti-abortion and pro death penalty is just a hypocrite” and the blatant wrongness of statements such as those, and all the other claptrap that proves they are another successful graduate of the American public school system, just knocks the wind out of me. Oh, I could sit around in a bar with them and shoot the shit (except I don’t go to bars anymore), but I realize that true friendship will just not be possible unless one of us changes…and I’ve spent too much time and research, and have too much experience to change now. Is that why I blog? Because I’m lonely? Hmmmm, it’s possible…

Well, I’m going to miss Bane. He was truly never afraid to say exactly what was on his mind, and I can’t help but respect that. Most of the time his comments were hilarious, especially when he was going after some numb-nuts liberal. Hopefully he’ll find his way back here some day.

Posted on February 8, 2003 @ 12:07 am by Lee

Comments
Posted on February 8, 2003 @ 12:20 am by Sean Galbraith

You can’t spell libertarian with out liberal. ok, you can.. but they share a lot in common, just for different reasons.

Posted on February 8, 2003 @ 12:35 am by Lee

Actually liberals are even worse. Ask a liberal about how they feel about prayer in school, even though the Constitution SPECIFICALLY guarantees the right to the free exercise of religion. And I’m not talking about teaching religion in school, I’m talking about religious clubs or groups using school property for meetings. Liberals are dead against that. And while we’re on the First Amendment, how about the “hate speech” laws that liberals love so much?

How about the second amendment right to own firearms? Liberals (even the ACLU) seem to conveniently forget that one all the time.

Liberals also enact a number of rules regarding what individuals can do with their private property, even though the Constitution specifically states that nobody shall bedenied life, liberty, or property without the due process of law.

I could go on and on but you get the idea. Liberals are some of the most oppressive people I’ve ever met in my life. Not all, mind you, but this belief that liberals believe in freedom is just asinine, given the reality.

Posted on February 8, 2003 @ 8:49 am by Loretta

The biggest problem I have with “the so-called War on Drugs” is that it is a war on selective drugs. There is no war on alcohol, which statistically harms more people and causes more social problems than recreational drugs. The prohibition of alcohol promoted crime and poison, as does the current prohibition of drugs. I think that marijuana, heroin, and pure blow should be legalized and commercialized.
The nasty stuff people make in their basements should remain contraband.

Posted on February 8, 2003 @ 10:00 am by Court

It’s really sad he feels like that. I still like this blog. But then again, I am pro-choice, pro-drug and not a homophobe.

Posted on February 8, 2003 @ 10:09 am by John Little

People like him give conservatives a bad name. Bigotry, hatred, and intolerance are not conservative prerequisites.

Posted on February 8, 2003 @ 10:40 am by Scott

If people like Bane want to marginalize themselves, I certainly don’t give a shit. I’ll be happy to tell him to fuck off while I sit and smoke a phat joint, watch a hot lesbian porn movie, and compose an Email to my gay cousin and his boyfriend.

See Lee, people like you and I believe in FREEDOM. People like Bane believe in freedom as they (or their religon) dictate it. They are no more our “comrades” for the conservative/libertarian cause than Ralph Nader. We’re better off without their voices.

Posted on February 8, 2003 @ 1:11 pm by Deb

Lee, good post. I agree that one can identify with “conservative” positions while not necessarily agreeing with all of them. I’m very conflicted on choice because I think it’s intellectually dishonest to say a zygote–which has all the makings of a human being–is not a life. However, I worry that like other forms of extreme prohibition, the cure may be worse than the disease. I am very much opposed to abortions after the first trimester. All you have to do is look at a sonogram to see why. People ask me what I’d do if I found out I was pregnant with a downs baby or a baby who was deformed, and I say that the only way I could see myself aborting my child would be if my life were in serious jeopardy, or if the child, if born, would surely die from some horrific disease or inoperable defect. I’ve known people who’ve faced this decision, and it was gut-wrenchingly hard for them, but in the end, they felt it was for the best and I agree.

I believe in legalizing all but the man-made drugs for the same reasons as you Lee, 100% in agreement there. And as for homosexuality? I have no problem with it whatsoever. Do I think it’s “normal?” Not sure…Some days I think there is no such thing as “normal,” other days I read articles about how frogs and turtles and fish are becoming “feminized” or androgenous because of environmental factors, and I wonder…Even my best gay friend doesn’t think he’s “normal,” he just doesn’t care, and I think that’s a healthy attitude. People all too often equate “normal” with “good,” when all it really refers to is “the norm” or the common. Since the biological imperative of most creatures is reproduction, homosexuality would seem to be outside the norm, but then again, I believe nature works in interesting ways to create balance and to prevent over-population (disease, famine, drought, etc…may all be evidence of this). It sounds horribly cold and Darwinian of me, but these are the kinds of thoughts I have at at times. In the end, however, I believe we MUST judge people by (as MLK said) the content of their character, not by any other measurement.

Does that mean I would be all that jazzed if my child’s elementary school teacher “came out” to them in class, as part of a lesson plan? No. I think it’s important to introduce children to sexuality gradually, and to make sure they are ready to understand that which they don’t already take for granted. For kids who already have “two daddies” or “two mommies,” it may not be a problem, but for most kids it might, and parents ought to make the final choice. I don’t think we can teach tolerance by forcing it on people, any more than we can “cure” homosexuality by forcing them to live hetero lives.

As for guns, I’m pro-gun. I won’t even expound on this beyond saying that (as a poster I saw once says) I don’t see how rendering me helpless keeps anyone else safe from violent gun crime.

I hate the UN, am terrified we’ll get a president who will sign on to the ICC, and think AIDS in Africa is not our problem. I think tax reduction (esp. estate taxes, cap gains and dividend taxes) is LONG overdue, and I think gov’t should stay out of the science biz for the most part. Frankenfoods don’t bother me, eat ’em all the time, of course I also eat meat and dairy products, drive a car and breathe air–all more likely to harm me any day of the week.

I think stem cell research is vitally important, but prefer the use of cord blood to embryos because people are greedy and I dread the “get pregnant and sell your embryo” ads that I have no doubt would appear in the back of tabloid papers and on websites.

I think that about covers my views–certainly not 100% in line with yours, but hey, I still love this site and will keep coming back for the lively debate and thought-provoking commentary!
KUTGW!

Posted on February 8, 2003 @ 2:58 pm by Bill Peschel

Think he’s serious when he says:

“I still like the guys well enough who host those sites, I just can’t, in good conscience, hang out there anymore. This is why the only true friend I have is my wife, because she and I agree fully on all of the truly important issues. I’ll meet someone who I think “hmmm, maybe I could make a friend, here” and then they say something to the effect that “what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom doesn’t effect me” or “anybody who is anti-abortion and pro death penalty is just a hypocrite” and the blatant wrongness of statements such as those, and all the other claptrap that proves they are another successful graduate of the American public school system, just knocks the wind out of me.”

Anyone who bases friendship solely on 100% agreement on all important issues leads an extremely limited life. And lonely.

Posted on February 8, 2003 @ 3:20 pm by Deb

Bill, I agree with you. How boring life would be if we only hung around with people who agreed with us. The only part of his statement I can empathize with is the idea that sometimes it’s hard to be around people whose views are so different from our own, but just because something “knocks the wind” out of us at times doesn’t mean we should hide from it. That’s not only a surefire way to end up lonely as individuals, it’s a one-way ticket to stagnation of our entire society.

Posted on February 8, 2003 @ 4:32 pm by Loretta

I wonder if the family of the dead Israeli astronaut felt any better watching Billy Bob and Joe Bob and their dog wandering around the still smoking crash site yesterday. Do you think maybe King found himself a barbecued kosher snack?

I think it’s anti-Semitic and mean spirited, and I don’t believe for a minute that he shed one single tear.

If I were you, Lee, I would be saying, “Good Riddance!”

Posted on February 8, 2003 @ 4:46 pm by Lee

Believe me, Bane’s stuff was quite often tasteless, and I’m under no illusions about that. But just like I let every left-wing nutjob post whatever they like in the comments section I also let Bane do his thing in his own style. If another reader was offended by Bane’s remarks they could take him to task for them, and quite often people did. I just don’t believe in having a comments section and then deleting what people write when it’s something I personally don’t agree with.

Posted on February 8, 2003 @ 4:52 pm by Owen Courrèges

Ideologically, I’m completely with Bane. I think that traditionalist ideals are the defining factor that distinguishes conservatives from liberals, and I do find it troubling that so many self-described conservatives are socially liberal, using liberal (classical or modern) arguments and rhetoric to justify their errant positions. So with all respect to Lee, I find pro-choice, pro-homosexuality views to be repugnant (this does not make me a homophobe or a hater, though, so nobody pull that crap with me.).

That being the case, however, I visit many web logs and know many people who disagree with me on the issues. It helps me refute their stances and flesh out my own views. This doesn’t amount to a concession. I still think certain views are wrong, even foolish, but that doesn’t mean the people who hold those views are stupid or even ill-intentioned. Accordingly, I think Bane does himself a disservice through voluntary self-segregation.

Posted on February 8, 2003 @ 4:56 pm by Owen Courrèges

Hmmm… I meant ideologically with Bane in terms of his views expressed in the post referenced by Lee. I certainly don’t condone anybody speaking gleefully of the shuttle disaster, and I think that any such talk is completely out of step with conservative ideology.

Posted on February 8, 2003 @ 5:28 pm by Lee

For the sake of discussion, Owen, I’d be curious to hear some of your refutations of my stances outlined above.

Posted on February 8, 2003 @ 6:07 pm by Owen Courrèges

Lee,

Well, I’ll have to be fairly brief.

On abortion you invariably set up a sliding scale for human life based upon its development. It’s ok to abort a fetus “early in a pregnancy” (whenever that is) but at some point it ought to be banned. Accordingly, at some mysterious point in pregnancy a fetus merits the right to live, but not before. However, there is no precise demarcation. There is only gradual development combined with an arbitrary standard (i.e. abortions are permissible in the first trimester, but not in the second or third).

If your justification for this standard is mental capacity, then you might well end up determining that it is permissible to kill the severely mentally retarded, or you may end up considering certain primates worthy of the same rights humans have (the position of Peter Singer). If your standard is some nebulous view of “development,” then one wonders why the standard was drawn during pregnancy. True mental awareness is not conferred upon birth or in the second trimester, and physically a fetus resembles an infant very early in preganacy. All of these issues are solved by simply banning abortion across-the-board. Human life is human life, all humans are persons, and thus abortion is impermissible.

On the matter of homosexuality, I’d argue that it should be opposed on the same basis that pedophilia, incest, and bestiality are condemned. Besides the typical religious views, which are certainly valid by themselves, it is simply unnatural and morally revolting. This doesn’t mean I support sodomy laws (everything wrong needn’t be illegal), but it does mean that things such as gay marriage shouldn’t be permitted. The fundamental order of society, indeed, a pillar of Western society is damaged by such proposals. If we cannot be guided by tradition and traditional institutions, what are we left with?

I haven’t fleshed that out fully, although Jim Kalb’s “Sexual Morality FAQ” gives a more nuanced view of social conservatism and issues such as homosexuality. That being said, I don’t think my stance as outlined above is necessarily lacking, but like all moral issues where a core ethical assumption is involved, it’s simple enough to deny but not to refute.

As for the drug war, you can consult my brief on the drug war from the Houston Review entitled: “No Surrender: A Brief in Favor of the Drug War.” I’ve also dealt pretty extensively with human cloning on my web log (start at the beginning and scroll down).

Posted on February 9, 2003 @ 9:24 am by Molly

There are definitely shades to ‘conservatism’ but I wouldn’t call you a liberal by any stretch. For goodness sakes, you’re in the Bay Area, and you’re probably one of the most conservative people around. However I’d say we’d disagree on the stem cell issue, legalizing drugs, and not having any problems with homosexuality but that doesn’t discount your conservative stances on other issues.

I think as a movement we need to look at to what we have in common and bring those along that may not meet the criteria of conservatism. I am a social and fiscal conservative. I know that some people may not agree with my social stances, but I’d hope they’d at least try to see that there is far more in common with me than with our enemies. But there are litmus issues with me which may differ from others. But I can see where I can win support and when I may be the lone voice. But listening to another’s perspective is important, even when you disagree with it. If anything it makes you better at debating your stance.

Posted on February 9, 2003 @ 9:24 am by Loretta

Owen,
I read your brief. I completely disagree with every argument you pose, and the so-called “War on Drugs” is one of the greatest single HYPOCRICIES of juristiction that this country has ever imposed.

Posted on February 9, 2003 @ 9:51 am by David Mangan

Look, I don’t agree with Lee, Sean, broken, Deb, Bane, or anyone else a full 100%. That’s why I come here, and read other’s posts. Because if I just isolated myself and only read what agreed with my pre-concived notions, I’d never learn, grow, explore, or change. I’d just stagnate. And while arguing with people may not change my mind, it will at least make me think about my position. Isn’t that what open, honest debate is for?

This was written by some damn Jap. I still hold a grudge against them for their part in WW2 (and for, ugh, Anime), but I know good, pithy writing when I see it. Read on, and if you disagree with anything below, go find a mirror and look into the eyes of a shithead:

A JAPANESE VIEW OF THE PALESTINIANS

by Yashiko Sagamori (from Women in Green)

If you are so sure that “Palestine, the country, goes back through most of recorded history”, I expect you to be able to answer a few basic questions about that country of Palestine:

When was it founded and by whom?

What were its borders?

What was its capital?

What were its major cities?

What constituted the basis of its economy?

What was its form of government?

Can you name at least one Palestinian leader before Arafat?

Was Palestine ever recognized by a country whose existence, at that time or now, leaves no room for interpretation?

What was the language of the country of Palestine?

What was the prevalent religion of the country of Palestine?

What was the name of its currency? Choose any date in history and tell what was the approximate exchange rate of the Palestinian monetary unit against the US dollar, German mark, GB pound, Japanese yen, or Chinese yuan on that date.

And, finally, since there is no such country today, what caused its demise and when did it occur?

You are lamenting the “low sinking” of a “once proud” nation. Please tell me, when exactly was that “nation” proud and what was it so proud of?

And here is the least sarcastic question of all: If the people you mistakenly call “Palestinians” are anything but generic Arabs collected from all over — or thrown out of — the Arab world, if they really have a genuine ethnic identity that gives them right for self-determination, why did they never try to become independent until Arabs suffered their devastating defeat in the Six Day War?

I hope you avoid the temptation to trace the modern day “Palestinians” to the Biblical Philistines: substituting etymology for history won’t work here.

The truth should be obvious to everyone who wants to know it. Arab countries have never abandoned the dream of destroying Israel; they still cherish it today. Having time and again failed to achieve their evil goal with military means, they decided to fight Israel by proxy. For that purpose, they created a terrorist organization, cynically called it “the Palestinian people” and installed it in Gaza, Judea, and Samaria. How else can you explain the refusal by Jordan and Egypt to unconditionally accept back the “West Bank” and Gaza, respectively?

The fact is, Arabs populating Gaza, Judea, and Samaria have much less claim to nationhood than that Indian tribe that successfully emerged in Connecticut with the purpose of starting a tax-exempt casino: at least that tribe had a constructive goal that motivated them. The so called “Palestinians” have only one motivation: the destruction of Israel, and in my book that is not sufficient to consider them a nation” — or anything else except what they really are: a terrorist organization that will one day be dismantled.

In fact, there is only one way to achieve peace in the Middle East. Arab countries must acknowledge and accept their defeat in their war against Israel and, as the losing side should, pay Israel reparations for the more than 50 years of devastation they have visited on it. The most appropriate form of such reparations would be the removal of their terrorist organization from the land of Israel and accepting Israel’s ancient sovereignty over Gaza, Judea, and Samaria.

That will mark the end of the Palestinian people. What are you saying again was its beginning?

You are absolutely correct in your understanding of the “Palestinians” murderous motives. I am afraid however that you, along with 99% of the population of this planet have missed the beginning of WWIII (the enemy call it Jihad) quite a few years ago. The siege of the US embassy in Tehran in 1979, an event to which the latest Nobel Peace Prize winner had so miserably failed to respond, can be very well used as the day WWIII stepped out of the pages of the Koran and into the current events.

I pray the United States and Israel lead the world to victory in this war. Come to think of it, there is no choice, be you a Christian, or even, believe it or not, a Muslim.